REVIEWS 749 In summary, this is a fresh, well written and thoroughly researched study, full of original insights, that offers a comprehensive and holistic picture of Shestov’s philosophical heritage. It both does justice to Shestov’s thought in historical perspective, and convincingly highlights its contemporary relevance. School of Humanities, Language and Global Studies O. Tabachnikova University of Central Lancashire McAteer, Cathy. Translating Great Russian Literature: The Penguin Russian Classics. BASEES/ Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, 140. Routledge, London and New York, 2021. xxx + 166 pp. Illustrations. Notes. References. Appendices. Index. £120.00; open access e-book. The early history of the British reception of Russian literature is well known. Following the sporadic appearance of translations in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Crimean War generated more sustained interest, and by the end of the century, publishers had recognized there was a definite market for Russian literature. Some developed close partnerships with particular translators. Heinemann’s collaboration with Constance Garnett from 1892 to 1920 is justly renowned for bringing the work of Turgenev, Dostoevskii and Chekhov into the British canon of foreign literature, though Vizetelly’s earlier publication of Frederick Whishaw’s translations and Constable’s and Oxford University Press’s associations with Stephen Graham and Aylmer and Louise Maude respectively, were also important. Graham edited ‘Constable’s Russian Library’, for example, one of several series of Russian writing in English that appeared during the First World War, as publishers capitalized on the wartime alliance with Russia. In Translating Great Russian Literature, Cathy McAteer examines Russian literature’s place in a later, more familiar series, probably in fact the bestknown book series in British publishing: Penguin Classics. As Constable, Hodder and Stoughton, and Maunsel had responded to a market for Russian literature created by the First World War, so during the Second World War, Penguin began to investigate a market that had become more sympathetic to the Soviet Union. In their main list, they published books on recent Soviet history, politics and society, and in 1945 the company founded the Penguin Russian Review ‘to contribute to the initiation of the stranger to Russia into the spirit of the Russian people as it is embodied in their history and literature, their arts and sciences, their philosophy, their aspiration, and their economic life’. ‘No other post-war nation qualified for similar Penguin Review treatment’, McAteer notes (p. 3). But the Review cost more to produce than it earned and SEER, 99, 4, OCTOBER 2021 750 was discontinued in 1948 after four issues. For McAteer, though, the openly idealistic aims of the postwar Review go some way towards explaining the high profile of Russian literature in the new Penguin Classics series, launched in 1946. The first version of the series under the general editorship of E. V. Rieu, the so-called ‘medallion’ series (1950–62), included sixteen translations from Russian literature, more than any other modern literature bar French — twice as many as from Italian, and five times as many as from Spanish. McAteer’s monograph, packed with interesting detail, is a timely contribution to Russian studies, translation studies and book history. As she makes clear in her introduction and conclusion, she is particularly interested in expanding the methodology of translation studies by bringing approaches derived from Pierre Bourdieu’s literary sociology to bear on archival research into publishers’, translators’ and authors’ archives, and comparative textual analysis of translations and their source texts. Her avowed aim is to recover how the approach of individual translations was produced not only by their translators, but by a network of individuals over time. This brings much of interest to light. The impact of Rieu’s powerfully domesticating approach to translation and his conception of ‘the Penguin public’ is particularly striking. Writing to Elisaveta Fen about her translation of Ivanov, he remarks, ‘I still contend that the best way to get the characters across is to make them say everything they have to say in the most English way, however foreign the sentiment may be to us’ (p. 21). The fact that Rieu’s ‘principle of equivalent effect’ was cited as a source of Eugene Nida’s ‘principles of correspondence’ in 1964...
Read full abstract